Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog

Airline Attendants Win $77M in California Wage and Hour Lawsuit

January 26, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Flight attendants for two major airlines based in the U.S. recently won a $77 million federal class action wage and hour lawsuit in California, which in addition to damages, restitution and penalties includes a $3,550-a-day interest for each day since last October, when plaintiffs had to submit an accounting of what they were owed. An estimated 1,400 flight attendants will receive pay for California wage and hour violations that included unpaid working hours, unpaid overtime, failure to receive accurate wage statements and denial of breaks as required by state statute.

The judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern Court of California had already granted judgment on the airline’s liability back in 2017, but an accounting of employee damages hadn’t been included in that ruling.

California wage and hour lawyers know the damage award in this employee lawsuit is important because the airlines had fought hard to assert federal deregulation trumped state law, and that the workers wrongly filed their claims in California – knowing they favor employees compared to other states – when in reality the claims didn’t arise in California but in many other parts of the world. The court did rule that passport expenses would not be reimbursed per a San Francisco statute (they lived and trained elsewhere) but the judge denied the other claims were improperly filed, citing executives’ policy decisions made exclusively from a California headquarters – standards that were followed globally company-wide. Continue Reading ›

California Wage Theft Lawsuit Ends With $690k Settlement to to 240 Restaurant Workers

January 24, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

A California wage theft lawsuit filed on behalf of 240 workers is being settled for $690,000, having been given the preliminary approval from a superior court judge recently. Final approval of the deal is expected in April, according to BerkleySide.com. As our Los Angeles restaurant wage theft attorneys know, the restaurant industry is notorious for a host of labor law violations, ranging from failure to pay overtime, denying meal breaks, skimming hours from time sheets or failing to pay for work-related responsibilities . The U.S. Department of Labor’s wage-and-hour division reported that roughly 84 percent of full-service restaurants investigated between 2010 and 2012 had violated labor law standards, including wage and tip violations.

This class action litigation was pursued by workers such as prep cooks and dishwashers at a chain taco restaurant, where current and former employees say they were cheated out of fair wages and subjected to other labor law violations.

According to the initial complaint, Martinez et al v. Gordo Taqueria et al, the lawsuit alleges that for at lest four years, defendants had a practice of distributing plaintiffs’ tips at the end of each calendar year or occasionally sometimes periodically throughout, requiring workers to pool their tips and unlawfully divide them amongst themselves in an a fashion that was arbitrary. Continue Reading ›

Black Hair Discrimination at Work? California Bill Would Trim Employer Pretext for Racial Bias

January 21, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Los Angeles racial discrimination attorneys know that “black hair discrimination” is real. But is it illegal? The question that gets to the core of federal anti-discrimination law is how do we define discrimination in employment on the basis of race? But Los Angeles racial discrimination lawyers know that when the U.S. Supreme Court had the opportunity recently to determine whether one’s styling of natural hair could be considered a means of racial discrimination, it declined, allowed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals 2017 ruling to stand.

In that case, EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, plaintiff, a black woman who wore her hair in dreadlocks, applied for a job at a call center, one in which no direct public contact would be required. Nonetheless, the company told the woman she would need to cut her dreadlocks because the company grooming policy prohibited “excessive hairstyles or unusual colors.” The applicant refused to cut her hair, the job offer was rescinded and she sued for racial discrimination in employment. The appellate panel, ruling in the employer’s favor, decided that protections under federal Title VII doesn’t extend to one’s hairstyle, which the court held is associated with culture and other traits as opposed to the “immutable physical characteristic” by which race is defined. The court did question why the EEOC didn’t pursue this as a disparate action claim (i.e., the policy may be race-neutral, but can have a discriminatory impact on a protected individual or group of people). That leaves the door open for the possibility that a successful claim within that circuit could be pursued.

The 11th Circuit’s ruling also appears to directly contradict the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, in which the court ruled federal civil rights law barred discrimination on the basis of stereotypes – regardless of whether the stereotype in question involves a trait that is immutable. (That case specifically dealt with gender discrimination and a woman denied upward professional mobility for – in the employer’s view – not wearing enough makeup or walking/talking more femininely. The court held the policy wan’t a legitimately non-discriminatory basis on which to deny plaintiff a promotion, but rather a pretext that disguised gender discrimination.) Continue Reading ›

Corporate Study: 99 Percent of Large Businesses Settled Employment Discrimination, Harassment Lawsuits Since 2000

January 18, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

The overwhelming majority of American corporations listed in the Fortune 500 have settled at least one employment discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuit, according to a corporate industry study by a national accountability and development think-tank. Good Jobs First reports these included both individual employment lawsuits as well as class action claims, with 189 large firms like Bank of America and Coca-Cola and Walmart paying out nearly $2 billion in settlements and penalties since 2000 – roughly 35 percent of those stemming from private lawsuits (as opposed to those filed by the EEOC or Federal Contract Compliance Programs). Private lawsuits accounted for 79 percent of the $2 billion in payouts. Those are only the cases in which settlements were disclosed.

The big business that has paid the most in disclosed employment discrimination claims is Bank of America, which has paid approximately $210 million in settlements. Coca-Cola is a close second at $200 million, Novartis in third at $183 million, Morgan & Stanley fourth at $150 million and Abercrombie & Fitch rounding out the top five at $90 million. Of the parent companies that disclosed employment lawsuit penalties, 40 percent were involved in more than one case.

Walmart had the largest number of cases, but had paid out less than the others in the last 20 years – 52 million. The study authors note this likely would have been much higher if Walmart v. Dukes, a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case had a different outcome. In that case, a female Walmart worker filed for class certification alleging gender discrimination, alleging some 1.6 million former and current employees of the company qualified for the class. In a split 5-4 decision, the high court reversed the Ninth District’s ruling and determined the workers didn’t have enough in common for class certification. Continue Reading ›

SCOTUS Hands Huge Pro-Worker Victory to California Truckers in Forced Arbitration Case

January 15, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

The U.S. Supreme Court handed a significant victory to American workers in a case that started as a California employment lawsuit over forced arbitration by independent contractors working in transportation. The decision in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira was a somewhat surprising outcome given that the court in recent years has a history of favoring corporate interests over workers. (Note: Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who assumed the bench after the oral argument, did not participate in the decision, but the ruling was unanimous.) As our Los Angeles employment arbitration lawyers can explain, this will allow hundreds of thousands of independent contractors nationally to take their cases to court, rather than be mandated to settle them quietly before an arbitrator.

The problem with arbitration – whether it’s a case of product liability or premises liability or unfair wages or sexual harassment – is that it tends largely to favor employers and big corporations. The arbitrators are paid by the companies, the outcomes are not public (depriving the public of pertinent information regarding unfair or unsafe business practices) and even when cases are decided in plaintiff’s favor, they tend to be lesser than what one could expect to receive when cases go to a jury.

This case stems from a dispute between a trucking company employer and a truck driver, who was hired to complete some 10,000 miles of driving as an “apprentice” before he could expect payment. Even after that, he was expected to drive for 30,000 miles as a trainee, during which time he was paid $4 hourly. Then, once he was finally designated a full-time driver, he was still misclassified as an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee. He was required to lease the truck he drove from the defendant, buy his own equipment from their store and purchase his own diesel fuel, often from gas pumps that were owned by the defendant. In any other employment situation, the employer would be the one footing the bill for these expenses. The result, in several cases, was that the “independent contractor” truck driver would have to deduct these expenses from his income, meaning sometimes his paychecks actually wound up being negative. He was paying this company to work for them. Continue Reading ›

California Sexual Harassment Accusers Protected From Defamation Lawsuits

January 12, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

California sexual harassment claimants can now make allegations, undeterred by the prospect of being hit back with a defamation lawsuit that turns the tables and the proof burden back on them. The change, formally in effect as of Jan. 1, 2019, came after state lawmakers last year heard testimony from experts who were clear in showing how such defamation laws had been used for decades to protect harassers. As Los Angeles sexual harassment attorneys can explain, the long-existing law gives those who claim to be falsely accused and suffering damage to reputation as a result to pursue litigation for false and unprivileged statements – written or oral – made about them by either former co-workers or their previous employer. Basically if the sexual harassment was not unequivocally proven, the person who made the allegation or the former employer could be responsible to pay damages for defamation.

In order to sidestep this outcome, the new law, AB 2770, considers such communications – specifically regarding sexual harassment – to be “privileged.” Some types of communication was already considered privileged under the law, such as that of a former employer to a prospective employer regarding job qualifications and performance of an applicant for a job. The new measure simply extends that scope now to also encompass statements pertaining to employees in California accused of sexual harassment. Specifically, it protects what former employers can say about whether they would rehire an applicant on the basis of the company’s determination of sexual harassment alleged to have been committed by the worker.

The law also contains a special portion that elevates communications and complaints about sexual harassment made from other employees to the employer to the level of “privileged.” Continue Reading ›

California Fast-Food Firm Facing 10k+ Mandatory Employment Arbitration Claims Seeks Reprieve

January 10, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Wage theft is a serious problem in California. As Los Angeles wage and hour lawyers, we have seen this play out in almost every industry and at nearly every level of employment, but it tends to occur most often to the most vulnerable workers. The fast-food industry is no exception. One way that companies try to sidestep the worst outcomes in these cases is to, where possible, bar workers from banding together in class action litigation. This is achieved through mandatory employment arbitration agreements, which have largely been upheld by the courts, up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court, via an early 20th Century law known as the Federal Arbitration Act.

However, using this tactic in a series of California wage theft lawsuits may have backfired in the case of one national fast-food chain, according to The Los Angeles Times. The story begins as so many do: Large, chain employers cutting corners of labor laws and allegedly committing wage theft is fairly common, as is the practice of mandatory employment arbitration. What makes the recently-highlighted situation different is that in trying to shield itself from a class action litigation for wage theft, the company may have effectively shot itself in the foot.

This particular fast-food chain has some 2,300 restaurant locations nationally, and it’s been battling some 10,000 claims of wage theft for the last six years. Last summer, the company won its motion filed in a federal court in Colorado to compel some 2,800 workers who filed lawsuits to instead participate in mandatory employment arbitration. However, employment lawyers for the company may now be wondering if this was the smartest move because now it is facing tens of thousands of individual arbitration proceedings across the country – proceedings it is compelled to pay for itself and which could cost tens of thousands of dollars each. The alternative of a class action lawsuit may not seem so burdensome considering it would require a single group of lawyers in one location, rather than thousands scattered before abitrators across the U.S. As it now stands, according to The Times, approximately 150 claims have been filed. Continue Reading ›

California Farm Worker Protections Among the Best, Still Inadequate

January 8, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Following a recent Southern California labor strike of nearly 2,000 subcontracted orange pickers from one of the largest fruit companies in the U.S., Los Angeles wage and hour attorneys are looking even more closely at this industry, wherein an increasingly substantial number of workers are employed by third-party labor contractors, rather than the farm companies themselves. As far as agricultural workers go, those in California enjoy some of the best labor law protections in the country. However, workers employed by these third-party firms are often exempted from some of the required protections they’d otherwise enjoy under state law, including overtime pay.

Much of it comes down to power disparities, the wink-and-nod regulators give to the companies that fulfill demand for undocumented workers and loopholes many farms have long exploited.

This most recent strike began after one of the state’s top citrus producers slashed the price-per-bin pay on mandarins harvested. Previously, they were primarily focused on so-called “clementines,” which are smaller, but then shifted more harvest work to the larger mandarins. The rate-per-bin was dropped from $53 to $48. The company told The Los Angeles Times this was due to a “seasonal shift,” but a farm union spokesman stated employees had always been paid the same per-bin rate, regardless of the variety they were picking. Continue Reading ›

California Labor Commissioner: Retailers Jointly Liable for Trucker Labor Violations

January 4, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Retailers have officially been put on notice by the California Labor Commission: If you hire trucking companies engage in unfair wage and hour practices against truck drivers, you too could be held jointly liable. Los Angeles truck driver wage and hour lawyers understand that to drive home the point, the agency posted a list of firms with outstanding court fines, tax liens and tax assessments can be held jointly and severally liable for future labor law violations committed by those companies.

The companies in question have been deemed by the commission and/or the courts to have committed wage theft against their workers, failing to pay them what they are owed by law. In many cases, the truck drivers were intentionally misclassified as independent contractors (rather than employees), in turn cheating them of pay benefits like workers’ compensation and unemployment. (This, as well as attempts to shield the firms from liability, which can be expensive, if the drivers are negligent and cause a serious truck accident resulting in someone else’s injury). Additionally some of the trucking companies are accused of failing to pay truck drivers minimum wages, overtime or other expenses.

Misclassification of employees in California is a serious problem, one that widens profit margins for the companies at the expense of everyone else – including and especially the workers. The reason this is illegal has to do with unfair competition. The idea is that these firms shouldn’t continue to pass on that unfair advantage to their retail contractors at the expense of workers and taxpayers. Continue Reading ›

California Gender Discrimination Lawsuit at Tech Firm Alleges Systematic Disparate Wages

January 2, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

Women who work in tech are known to be at higher risk of gender disparity. Interestingly, in the early days of electronic computing, many of these jobs were strongly associated with women (as it was considered an unimportant, deskilled work). However, once it became clear that computers would be indispensable in almost every corner of industry and government, the female programmers who once held all the requisite skills suddenly were pushed out, boxed out of their jobs, denied promotions and replaced by men (especially when the women in question were married or had children).

In Silicon Valley, our California employment attorneys know the claims of gender discrimination have been well-documented. While companies insist they are doing their best to address these problems, the reality is progress has been slow and uneven.

Recently, another such gender discrimination lawsuit, was filed against tech giant Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, accused of systematic pay disparity that resulted in women consistently being paid less than their male counterparts for the same work – even when they had more experience or more seniority at the firm than their male counterparts. In one case, plaintiff said she was asked to step into the role of a recently-deceased supervisor, for which she was promised a promotion and a raise. Yet it wasn’t until another co-worker in a different department stumbled across financial documents with the firm that she – and others – learned she received far less pay (and no change in title) for taking over her predecessor’s responsibilities. Per The Mercury News, plaintiffs are seeking class action status. Continue Reading ›